4 ms·

> In other places this is much more difficult - see Bangladesh, Pakistan, various sub-saharan countries. At this point I have to ask what's these countries exc

> In other places this is much more difficult - see Bangladesh, Pakistan, various sub-saharan countries. At this point I have to ask what's these countries excuse not to adapt. Isn't it the government's job to plan for these events? What makes it so difficult? Perhaps this [0] has more to do with it than climate change... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Their excuse is that rich countries have not followed through with the money that was promised. Rich countries promised $100B climate change mitigation and adaptation but have not kept that promise.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Most of that was to go to China, who are building coal plants the breakneck pace of two a week.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    That's not true. India is the top recipient. China was a recipient before 2021 but became ineligible in 2022.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      My information is outdated, but India is also currently building a ton of coal plants as well.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    The west is working hard at lowering it's emissions, but all that work is getting undone because China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has: - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) - A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%) Meanwhile for the same period China has had - a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%) - 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007 So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation. Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      Just calling out that inevitably, you'll hear from another side of this debate that will claim the West is trying to suppress rising countries like China from becoming globally competitive because the west is trying to get them "force green policies" on other countries and skip the parts we had the luxury to go through. Never mind the fact that you can modernize in a way that isn't environmentally destructive, mind you. I've seen this happen on HN multiple times w/r/ to mentioning China's environmental policies
      - Ekaros 3y ago
        I think we can reasonably only complain about China when it is beyond the per capita levels of USA.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Morally sure. When we all start dying anyways, then all bets are off.
        908B64B197 3y ago
        > per capita levels The thing is, from the planet's perspective, per-capita or whatever made-up metric don't matter. A ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2 no matter what.
        Ekaros 3y ago
        So from planet's perspective best would be to downgrade living standards of everyone alive today to pre-industrial levels. As that will lead to lowest CO2 emissions?
        no_wizard 3y ago
        Why not use green tech from the outset? Really no good reason not to at this point. Its demonstrably beneficial from less pollution to lower overall emissions, and builds up a "next gen" of expertise that will be extremely valuable over the next century, whoever gets these investments done will be in a great place over the next century relative to those who are later to the game, and that expertise will be very valuable (and a huge engine for economic growth). Go where the puck is moving, not where it is.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Their excuse is that rich countries have not followed through with the money that was promised. Rich countries promised $100B climate change mitigation and adaptation but have not kept that promise.

willcipriano 3y ago
Most of that was to go to China, who are building coal plants the breakneck pace of two a week.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  That's not true. India is the top recipient. China was a recipient before 2021 but became ineligible in 2022.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    My information is outdated, but India is also currently building a ton of coal plants as well.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  The west is working hard at lowering it's emissions, but all that work is getting undone because China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has: - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) - A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%) Meanwhile for the same period China has had - a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%) - 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007 So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation. Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Just calling out that inevitably, you'll hear from another side of this debate that will claim the West is trying to suppress rising countries like China from becoming globally competitive because the west is trying to get them "force green policies" on other countries and skip the parts we had the luxury to go through. Never mind the fact that you can modernize in a way that isn't environmentally destructive, mind you. I've seen this happen on HN multiple times w/r/ to mentioning China's environmental policies
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      I think we can reasonably only complain about China when it is beyond the per capita levels of USA.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Morally sure. When we all start dying anyways, then all bets are off.
      - 908B64B197 3y ago
        > per capita levels The thing is, from the planet's perspective, per-capita or whatever made-up metric don't matter. A ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2 no matter what.
        Ekaros 3y ago
        So from planet's perspective best would be to downgrade living standards of everyone alive today to pre-industrial levels. As that will lead to lowest CO2 emissions?
        no_wizard 3y ago
        Why not use green tech from the outset? Really no good reason not to at this point. Its demonstrably beneficial from less pollution to lower overall emissions, and builds up a "next gen" of expertise that will be extremely valuable over the next century, whoever gets these investments done will be in a great place over the next century relative to those who are later to the game, and that expertise will be very valuable (and a huge engine for economic growth). Go where the puck is moving, not where it is.